Date: 2009-06-21 01:59 pm (UTC)
davidklecha: Listening to someone else read the worst of my teenage writing. (Default)
From: [personal profile] davidklecha
The obvious advantage one might imagine over US Civil War era weaponry would be automatic cyclic action--that is, the automatic feeding of fresh ammunition into the chamber after firing. There was, in the 1860, such a thing as a "repeater" or repeating carbine (that is, short-barrel rifle), but it had a relatively small magazine compared to modern weapons.

So, think of the difference between a weapon that has to be reloaded after every shot with one, like an M-16, that can fire thirty before it needs to be reloaded, and in which reloading is a relatively fast and simple procedure. Someone with such a weapon would be able to produce a much higher volume of fire than even a large number of folks armed with period-appropriate arms.

One could also posit a boost in range and lethality. The difference, for instance, of lead slugs versus modern, jacketed rounds. Any modern Marine should be capable of regularly hitting a man-sized target at 500 yards, a feat reserved for specialist marksmen in earlier days. And our specialists (snipers) these days can nail targets upwards of a mile away.

If you have any questions or want any clarifications, just ask. I'm a former Marine machine gunner and I wrote the capstone paper for my history degree on the gunpowder revolution.
This account has disabled anonymous posting.
If you don't have an account you can create one now.
HTML doesn't work in the subject.
More info about formatting
.

Profile

writerstorm: (Default)
Writer Storm - A Brainstorming Community
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags